Boating Accident/Death off Diamond Island

rockythedog · 03-04-2010, 09:07 AM

Maybe if this thread was about the correct way to read a chart I wouldn't have been so critical of Dave, but considering the topic don't you think attention to facts is paramount? That's the problem with this type of arena. Somebody can post anything without having to back it up. So if your reckless with with what you choose to post for people to read, why shouldn't I doubt your judgment in other areas?

hazelnut · 03-04-2010, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockythedog

Maybe if this thread was about the correct way to read a chart I wouldn't have been so critical of Dave, but considering the topic don't you think attention to facts is paramount? That's the problem with this type of arena. Somebody can post anything without having to back it up. So if your reckless with with what you choose to post for people to read, why shouldn't I doubt your judgment in other areas?

Yes because you are perfect and never make mistakes. Fod gods sake it was an error made on a CHAT forum. Dave was not sworn in under any court of law when he made the post. This is a chat forum where people post thoughts and ideas. For you to "doubt (his) judgement in other areas?" Who are you to judge anyone in area? Dave posted his thoughts and corrected them when his error was pointed out. If you have a "problem with this type of arena," then don't read it and don't post to it. Talk about riding in on your high horse and snubbing your nose at everyone.

I too would rather ride with DAVE R any day because he actually displays characteristics of a GOOD pilot. One who can admit an error in judgement and correct it. Other than stubborn captains or pilots who think they are above all infallible. Those are the captains and pilots I'd be avoiding at all cost. Those are the guys that worry me.

Seaplane Pilot · 03-04-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockythedog

Maybe if this thread was about the correct way to read a chart I wouldn't have been so critical of Dave, but considering the topic don't you think attention to facts is paramount? That's the problem with this type of arena. Somebody can post anything without having to back it up. So if your reckless with with what you choose to post for people to read, why shouldn't I doubt your judgment in other areas?

Is it just me or does this sound eerily similar to the type of regular posts from one Turtle Boy? Must be just a coincidence???

VtSteve · 03-04-2010, 12:22 PM

I don't know exactly what point they started from on Governors Island, but let's say it's 10 miles. It was said it took them about three hours to get from Governors Island to the site of the crash. The Judge said around 10 minutes should be the norm. She's the judge, but probably misspoke, she's not on trial here. If you chart the route from the Wolf Trapp at around 11:00 PM, to GI then back towards Sleeper, in bad conditions, allowing 15 - 25 minutes or so while they were on GI, you'd have an approximate idea as to their speed of travel. Conditions probably worsened that night coming back from GI, so maybe they started real slow, especially around the Witches area. It's quite possible she thought she was in the clear later on and thought she knew exactly where she was.

All of this info will come out at the trial, so I'd not get too excited about the 10 minute remark. I know from my GPS, I can get trip info, mileage info, average speed, trace my footprints and all of that. Possibly this type of data will be presented as well.

The trial starts next week, so no need for snarly posts. Perhaps Rocky can take it up with the Judge, since it was her statement that started the math problem.

rockythedog · 03-04-2010, 01:10 PM

Awesome, I've been buttonholed and outed at the same time. From day one I have closely followed this tragic accident and it's horrific consequences, reading most every post and coming away with the feeling that this is some sort of volleyball game to see which side can score the most points. Would you not agree that this is a most sensitive and critical juncture? Is it asking too much from either side to thoughtfully consider what you put out there? It will soon be up to 12 people to decide what the facts of this case are. Can you give it a break till then. Afterwords they'll be plenty of time for you all to pick apart the bones of the verdict.

Dave R · 03-04-2010, 12:29 PM

Hey, no worries folks. Let's keep this on topic. I was completely wrong with my post and it was correct for rockythedog to call me out on it.

I was not offended, but I do appreciate folks sticking up for me.

NoBozo · 03-04-2010, 12:50 PM

I've always wondered how you get a modern 38 foot boat under the bridge at Wolfeboro to get to the Wolf Trap which is in Back Bay, in the first place. Even a GFBL (which this boat was not) ...without a windshield is fairly high off the water. I have to duck when I go under that bridge in my 20 footer without a windshield. Flag staffs down.

The only alternative is to Walk around from the Wolfeboro town docks...in cruddy weather. A bit of a hike.

NB

VtSteve · 03-04-2010, 01:04 PM

As usual, Dave, you handled it with grace and humility

IF quoted correctly, I think more importantly, it is the Judge that needs to review her statements. But distance aside, the conditions and the routing of that night's trip make for a interesting journey into deteriorating conditions. I would not want to make it myself.

Airwaves · 03-04-2010, 01:21 PM

I believe Governor's Island is just a reference point for non-boaters. I thought I had read (no I am not going back to look it up) that they were headed to Sleepers after playing the annual practical joke on her father at his place at Pendleton Beach. More non-boaters/non Winni users would be familiar with Governor's Island than the Pendleton Beach reference.

trfour · 03-04-2010, 09:23 PM

Trial set to start Monday; http://citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...9873/0/CITIZEN

VtSteve · 03-05-2010, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trfour

Trial set to start Monday; http://citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...9873/0/CITIZEN

That was a pretty good article, someone did their homework.

fatlazyless · 03-06-2010, 06:23 AM

If Attorney Jimmie Moir can bring home the bacon, I definately expect to see him roar past Buoy 3 in a nice, new Formula SS-370 express cruiser with the name DEFINING NEGLIGENCE on the stern.

Defining negligence....Attorney Jimmie Moir got the Thornton 25-year old guy out of the state prison...who in 2006 crossed the center line in the Rt 49-Thornton S-curve and killed three 54 year olds who were riding on two Harleys....defining negligence

In a 3-1 split decision, in June 2009, the judges on the New Hampshire supreme court reversed a lower court conviction of negligence because in the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Linda Dalianis, the driver crossing the center line for some unknown reason is not negligence.

Two 50-something couples, driving two Harley Davidsons, two men and two women, in June 2006, were struck head on, in the middle of the daytime, by a car that wandered across the center line, killing three and injuring the fourth.

After serving about three years of a twelve year sentence, Attorney Jimmie Moir won his client in an appeal before the NH Supremes.....because that incident did not constitute negligence.......defining negligence!

DEFINING NEGLIGENCE....sounds like a good name for a nice big boat!

...ladies & gentlemen of the jury.....what is negligence? ....the failure to use reasonable care....doing something that a reasonable & prudent person would not do...

ApS · 03-06-2010, 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VtSteve

That was a pretty good article, someone did their homework.

Update from yesterday found at that link:
http://citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art.../0/CITNEWS0101

In this entire case so far, a new word now appears:

Quote:

"Jurors...will see the boat she was allegedly driving when it struck the rocky shoreline of Diamond Island."

secondcurve · 03-06-2010, 10:39 AM

That is very interesting. I have been thinking about what type of defense has the potential to be successful in this case and I've been unable to come up with anything that seems to provide a reasonable doubt. Intoxication will be indisputable one way or the other with blood evidence and even if totally sober how can't she be found negligent after running into an island at a high rate of speed? It seems like an open an shut case, but it could be possible that she wasn't driving the boat.

secondcurve · 03-06-2010, 10:42 AM

Attorney James Moir of Concord, who is representing Blizzard, filed a motion asking trial Judge Kathleen McGuire to ask prospective jurors a number of questions before they could be selected to sit on the panel. Key among them was whether they had formed any opinions regarding people "who own or operate large powerboats" and if they had an opinion concerning whether there should be a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee.

Talk about a Red Herring!!!!!

Newbiesaukee · 03-06-2010, 11:49 AM

I am not an attorney and I have been following the thread from the beginning and prefer the system to run its course. But, I do not see that these are unreasonable questions for either the defense or the prosecution to ask a jury pool in this case;and it might cut both ways. A person who has strong feelings either pro or con the speed limit or who owns or doesn't own a "large" power boat might have very different feelings but these feelings could influence their deliberations...one way or the other. The idea is to have none of these feelings and to be impartial. I realize that reasonable people with strong feelings CAN be impartial. Unfortunately, the real world may not work that way, but I do not see it as a "red herring" as the feelings and conscious or unconscious feelings may have a direct bearing on the impartiality of a juror. To me, it is not different to ask a juror in a rape case if he or she has a close relative who has been raped; or, in a malpractice case if anyone is a physicican or is closely related to one. If you were on trial in this case, would you want a strong advocate for speed limits to be on your jury? I would like to believe that jurors are impartial regardless, but it ain't necessarily so.

Pineedles · 03-06-2010, 11:50 AM

Both this trial and the disposition of SB 464 are happening next week. Trial starts Monday and is expected to last till March 11th. SB 464 is being considered on March 11th.

SIKSUKR · 03-05-2010, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I thought I had read (no I am not going back to look it up) that they were headed to Sleepers after playing the annual practical joke on her father at his place at Pendleton Beach.

That is correct AW.

03-04-2010, 09:23 PM	#10
trfour Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: The Lakes, Central NH. and Dallas/Fort Worth TX. Posts: 3,694 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 3,069 Thanked 472 Times in 236 Posts	Jury Picked To Hear Boating Fatality Case... Trial set to start Monday; http://citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...9873/0/CITIZEN __________________ *trfour* Always Remember, The Best Safety Device In The Boat, or on a PWC Snowmobile etc., Is YOU! Safe sledding tips and much more; http://www.snowmobile.org/snowmobiling-safety.html

03-06-2010, 06:23 AM	#12
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,810 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 301 Thanked 1,027 Times in 747 Posts	...defining negligence! If Attorney Jimmie Moir can bring home the bacon, I definately expect to see him roar past Buoy 3 in a nice, new Formula SS-370 express cruiser with the name DEFINING NEGLIGENCE on the stern. Defining negligence....Attorney Jimmie Moir got the Thornton 25-year old guy out of the state prison...who in 2006 crossed the center line in the Rt 49-Thornton S-curve and killed three 54 year olds who were riding on two Harleys....defining negligence In a 3-1 split decision, in June 2009, the judges on the New Hampshire supreme court reversed a lower court conviction of negligence because in the opinion of Supreme Court Justice Linda Dalianis, the driver crossing the center line for some unknown reason is not negligence. Two 50-something couples, driving two Harley Davidsons, two men and two women, in June 2006, were struck head on, in the middle of the daytime, by a car that wandered across the center line, killing three and injuring the fourth. After serving about three years of a twelve year sentence, Attorney Jimmie Moir won his client in an appeal before the NH Supremes.....because that incident did not constitute negligence.......defining negligence! DEFINING NEGLIGENCE....sounds like a good name for a nice big boat! ...ladies & gentlemen of the jury.....what is negligence? ....the failure to use reasonable care....doing something that a reasonable & prudent person would not do... __________________ ... down and out, liv'n that Walmart side of the lake!

03-06-2010, 11:50 AM	#17
Pineedles Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Moultonborough & CT Posts: 2,548 Thanks: 1,073 Thanked 669 Times in 368 Posts	Interesting coincidence? Both this trial and the disposition of SB 464 are happening next week. Trial starts Monday and is expected to last till March 11th. SB 464 is being considered on March 11th.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-04-2010, 09:07 AM	#1
rockythedog Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 18 Thanks: 12 Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts	Maybe if this thread was about the correct way to read a chart I wouldn't have been so critical of Dave, but considering the topic don't you think attention to facts is paramount? That's the problem with this type of arena. Somebody can post anything without having to back it up. So if your reckless with with what you choose to post for people to read, why shouldn't I doubt your judgment in other areas?

The Following User Says Thank You to Seaplane Pilot For This Useful Post:
robmac (03-04-2010)

03-04-2010, 12:22 PM	#4
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	I don't know exactly what point they started from on Governors Island, but let's say it's 10 miles. It was said it took them about three hours to get from Governors Island to the site of the crash. The Judge said around 10 minutes should be the norm. She's the judge, but probably misspoke, she's not on trial here. If you chart the route from the Wolf Trapp at around 11:00 PM, to GI then back towards Sleeper, in bad conditions, allowing 15 - 25 minutes or so while they were on GI, you'd have an approximate idea as to their speed of travel. Conditions probably worsened that night coming back from GI, so maybe they started real slow, especially around the Witches area. It's quite possible she thought she was in the clear later on and thought she knew exactly where she was. All of this info will come out at the trial, so I'd not get too excited about the 10 minute remark. I know from my GPS, I can get trip info, mileage info, average speed, trace my footprints and all of that. Possibly this type of data will be presented as well. The trial starts next week, so no need for snarly posts. Perhaps Rocky can take it up with the Judge, since it was her statement that started the math problem.

03-04-2010, 01:10 PM	#5
rockythedog Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 18 Thanks: 12 Thanked 9 Times in 5 Posts	Awesome, I've been buttonholed and outed at the same time. From day one I have closely followed this tragic accident and it's horrific consequences, reading most every post and coming away with the feeling that this is some sort of volleyball game to see which side can score the most points. Would you not agree that this is a most sensitive and critical juncture? Is it asking too much from either side to thoughtfully consider what you put out there? It will soon be up to 12 people to decide what the facts of this case are. Can you give it a break till then. Afterwords they'll be plenty of time for you all to pick apart the bones of the verdict.

The Following User Says Thank You to rockythedog For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (03-05-2010)

03-04-2010, 12:29 PM	#6
Dave R Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 2,985 Thanks: 246 Thanked 744 Times in 444 Posts	Hey, no worries folks. Let's keep this on topic. I was completely wrong with my post and it was correct for rockythedog to call me out on it. I was not offended, but I do appreciate folks sticking up for me.

03-04-2010, 12:50 PM	#7
NoBozo Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Portsmouth. RI Posts: 2,231 Thanks: 400 Thanked 460 Times in 308 Posts	I've always wondered how you get a modern 38 foot boat under the bridge at Wolfeboro to get to the Wolf Trap which is in Back Bay, in the first place. Even a GFBL (which this boat was not) ...without a windshield is fairly high off the water. I have to duck when I go under that bridge in my 20 footer without a windshield. Flag staffs down. The only alternative is to Walk around from the Wolfeboro town docks...in cruddy weather. A bit of a hike. NB

03-04-2010, 01:04 PM	#8
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	As usual, Dave, you handled it with grace and humility IF quoted correctly, I think more importantly, it is the Judge that needs to review her statements. But distance aside, the conditions and the routing of that night's trip make for a interesting journey into deteriorating conditions. I would not want to make it myself.

03-04-2010, 01:21 PM	#9
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	I believe Governor's Island is just a reference point for non-boaters. I thought I had read (no I am not going back to look it up) that they were headed to Sleepers after playing the annual practical joke on her father at his place at Pendleton Beach. More non-boaters/non Winni users would be familiar with Governor's Island than the Pendleton Beach reference.

03-06-2010, 10:39 AM	#14
secondcurve Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,119 Thanks: 1,332 Thanked 559 Times in 288 Posts	That is very interesting. I have been thinking about what type of defense has the potential to be successful in this case and I've been unable to come up with anything that seems to provide a reasonable doubt. Intoxication will be indisputable one way or the other with blood evidence and even if totally sober how can't she be found negligent after running into an island at a high rate of speed? It seems like an open an shut case, but it could be possible that she wasn't driving the boat.

03-06-2010, 10:42 AM	#15
secondcurve Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,119 Thanks: 1,332 Thanked 559 Times in 288 Posts	Attorney James Moir of Concord, who is representing Blizzard, filed a motion asking trial Judge Kathleen McGuire to ask prospective jurors a number of questions before they could be selected to sit on the panel. Key among them was whether they had formed any opinions regarding people "who own or operate large powerboats" and if they had an opinion concerning whether there should be a speed limit on Lake Winnipesaukee. Talk about a Red Herring!!!!!

03-06-2010, 11:49 AM	#16
Newbiesaukee Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Coral Gables, winter; Long Island, summer Posts: 1,359 Thanks: 956 Thanked 573 Times in 298 Posts	I am not an attorney and I have been following the thread from the beginning and prefer the system to run its course. But, I do not see that these are unreasonable questions for either the defense or the prosecution to ask a jury pool in this case;and it might cut both ways. A person who has strong feelings either pro or con the speed limit or who owns or doesn't own a "large" power boat might have very different feelings but these feelings could influence their deliberations...one way or the other. The idea is to have none of these feelings and to be impartial. I realize that reasonable people with strong feelings CAN be impartial. Unfortunately, the real world may not work that way, but I do not see it as a "red herring" as the feelings and conscious or unconscious feelings may have a direct bearing on the impartiality of a juror. To me, it is not different to ask a juror in a rape case if he or she has a close relative who has been raped; or, in a malpractice case if anyone is a physicican or is closely related to one. If you were on trial in this case, would you want a strong advocate for speed limits to be on your jury? I would like to believe that jurors are impartial regardless, but it ain't necessarily so.